Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

USING A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE TO WRITE A

CRITICAL REVIEW
Writing a critical review of a journal article can help to 1. Select a Topic
improve your research skills. By assessing the work of
others, you develop skills as a critical reader and become If your lecturer does not assign a topic or a particular
familiar with the types of evaluation criteria that will article for you to review, and you must choose a topic
be applied to research in your field and thus your own yourself, try using a review article from your field. Review
research. articles summarize and evaluate current studies (research
articles) on a particular topic. Select a review article on a
You are expected to read the article carefully, analyze it, topic that interests you and that is written clearly so you
and evaluate the quality and originality of the research, can understand it.
as well as its relevance and presentation. Its strengths and
weaknesses are assessed, followed by its overall value. Do
not be confused by the term critique: it does not mean 2. Select a Research Article
that you only look at the negative aspects of what the Use the review article to select a research article. This can
researcher has done. You should address both the positive be very useful in writing your critique. The review article
and negative aspects. will provide background information for your analysis,
as well as establishing that the research paper you are
If your lecturer has given you specific advice on how critiquing is significant: if the paper was not so highly
to write a critical review, follow that advice. If not, the regarded, it would not have been selected to be reviewed.
following steps may help you. These steps are based on
a detailed description of how to analyze and evaluate a When choosing a research article, examine the Materials
research article provided by Wood (2003) in her lab guide & Methods section closely and make sure you have a good
at grasp of the techniques and methods used. If you don’t,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/mcb/courses/MICR3260/ you may have difficulty evaluating them.
research_lab/index.htm

This Fastfacts is divided into two parts. The first part,


3. Analyze the Text
“Researching the Critique,” outlines the steps involved in Read the article(s) carefully. As you read the article(s) use
selecting and evaluating a research article. The second part, the following questions to help you understand how and
“Writing your Critique,” discusses two possible ways to why the research was carried out.
structure your critique paper.
• What is the author’s central purpose? Look at
Introduction.
A. Researching the Critique
• What methods were used to accomplish this purpose
The questions listed under many of the subheadings in
(systematic recording of observations, analysis and
this section may provide you with a good place to begin
evaluation of published research, assessment of theory)?
understanding what you are looking for and what form
Look at Methods.
your critique might take.
What were the techniques used? and how was each
technique performed?
What kind of data can be obtained using each
technique?

Learning Commons Fastfacts Series ©2006


How are such data interpreted?
geographic locale, or did it have broader (even global)
What kind of information is produced by using the relevance?
technique?
• Were many other laboratories pursuing related research
• What objective evidence was obtained from the author’s when the reported work was done? If so, why?
efforts (observations, measurements etc.)? What were
the results of the study? Look at Results. • For experimental research, what funding sources met the
How was each technique used to obtain each result? costs of the research?
What statistical tests were used to evaluate the • Was the selection of the research topic influenced by the
significance of the conclusions based on numeric or source of research funding?
graphic data?
How did each result contribute to answering the • On what prior observations was the research based?
question or testing the hypothesis raised in the What was and was not known at the time?
introduction?
• How important was the research question posed by the
• How were the results interpreted? How were they related researcher?
to the original problem (author’s view of evidence rather
than objective findings)? Look at Discussion.
For more detailed information on how to answer these
Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test questions, see Labs 4 and 5 (Wood, 2003).
the hypothesis) raised?
Did the research provide new factual information, a
new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, a 5. Evaluate the Text
new research technique? After you have read the article and answered the
How was the significance of the work described? questions in the previous section, you should have a good
Did the reported observations/interpretations support understanding of the research undertaken. You can now
or refute observations or interpretations made by other begin to evaluate the author’s research. Making judgements
researchers? about someone else’s work is often the most difficult part
of writing the review. Many students feel that, because
(Adapted with permission of Professor Susan Lollis, Family they are new to a discipline, they do not have enough
Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph. knowledge to make judgements of other people’s work.
Source of questions in each section Wood, 2003)
The following checklist may assist you:

4. Establish the Research Context


INTRODUCTION
Once you are reasonably familiar with the article, it
is important to gain an understanding of the research • Read the statement of purpose at the end of the
context, both societal and intellectual. To establish the introduction. What was the objective of the study?
research context, questions such as the following should be
addressed: • Consider the title. Does it precisely state the subject of
the paper?
• Who conducted the research? What were/are their
interests? • Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it
match the one in the introduction?
• When and where was the research conducted?
• Check the sequence of statements in the introduction.
• Why did they do this research? Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose
of the study?
• Was this research pertinent only within the authors’

www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca 2.
METHODS • Are there other research possibilities/directions
suggested?
• Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the
study. Are the methods valid for studying the problem?
OVERVIEW
• Check the methods for essential information. Could the
• Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the
study be duplicated from the methods and information
article?
given?
• Check the structure of the article (first headings and
• Check the methods for flaws. Is the sample selection
then paragraphing). Is all the material organized under
adequate? Is the experimental design sound?
the appropriate headings? Are sections divided logically
into subsections or paragraphs?
• Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does
all the information belong there? Is the sequence of
• Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity and economy of
methods clear and pertinent?
expression addressed?

RESULTS
(adapted from Kuyper, 1991)
• Examine carefully the data as presented in the tables
and diagrams. Does the title or legend accurately
describe the content? Are column headings and labels 6. Establish the significance of the research
accurate? Are the data organized for ready comparison
Finally, it is important to establish whether the research
and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory,
has been successful – has it led to new questions being
with a title that accurately and concisely describes
asked, new ways of using existing knowledge? Are other
content and column headings that accurately describe
researchers citing this paper?
information in the cells.)

• Review the results as presented in the text while The following questions should be answered:
referring to the data in the tables and diagrams. Does • How did other researchers view the significance of the
the text complement, and not simple repeat, data? Are research reported by your authors?
there discrepancies between the results in the text and
those in the tables? • Did the research reported in your article result in the
formulation of new questions or hypotheses (by the
• Check all calculations and presentation of data. authors, by other researchers)?

• Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does • Have other researchers subsequently supported or
the study reveal what the researcher intended? refuted the observations/interpretations of these
authors?
DISCUSSION
• Did the research make a significant contribution to
• Check the interpretation against the results. Does human knowledge?
the discussion merely repeat the results? Does the
interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too • Did the research produce any practical applications?
far-fetched? Have the faults/flaws/shortcomings of the
research been addressed? • What are the social, political, technological, medical
implications of this research?
• Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in
the study? • How do you evaluate the significance of the research?

• Does the study consider key studies in the field?

www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca 3.
To answer these questions look at review articles to find out
how reviewers see this piece of research. Look at research
articles to see how other people have used this work; what APPROACH (B)
range of journals have cited this article? For more detailed
Another common way to structure a journal article critique
information on how to answer these questions, see Lab. 8
is the following:
(Wood, 2003).
Introduction
In the introduction, cite the journal article in full
B. Writing your Critique: and provide a summary of the journal article. Use
the answers to the questions in the section Analyze
Two possible approaches the Text to develop the summary.
Body
You have completed your analysis and evaluation of the
journal article. How do you then put all this information Follow the structure of the journal article. Evaluate
together? If your instructor has not provided a format each section of the article – Introduction, Methods,
for your critique, there are two possible ways you might Results, Discussion – highlighting the strengths
present it. and weaknesses of each section. Use the answers to
the questions in Evaluate the Text to develop this
section.
APPROACH (A) Conclusion
In this section, sum up the strengths and weaknesses
If your instructor is concerned that that the article be
of the research as a whole. Establish its practical and
clearly situated within the social and intellectual research
theoretical significance. Use the answers to questions
context, then you might present it in the following way:
Establish the Significance of the Research to develop
this section.
Introduction
In the introduction, cite the journal article in full
and then provide the background to this piece of References
research, establishing its place within the field.
Use the answers to the questions in Establish the Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of
Research Context to develop this section. critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250.
Body
Wood, J.M. (2003).Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260
Follow the structure of the journal article. Evaluate Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site.
each section of the article — Introduction, Methods, Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.uoguelph.
Results, Discussion — highlighting the strengths ca/mcb/courses/MICR3260/research_lab/index.htm
and weaknesses of each section. Use the answers to
the questions in Evaluate the Text to develop this
section.
Conclusion
In this section, sum up the strengths and weaknesses
of the research as a whole. Establish its practical and
theoretical significance. Use the answers to questions
Establish the Significance of the Research to develop
this section.

www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca 4.
Additional Relevant Fastfacts Please note that this material is protected by copyright.
For permission to reproduce this document in any form,
contact Writing Services, The Learning Commons,
• Acknowledging Print and Electronic Sources in the
University of Guelph. This document has links which
Sciences: CBE Style
are active when the handout is viewed on our Web
• Plagiarism and Academic Integrity site: www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca/ByFormat/
OnlineResources/Fastfacts/index.html.

Need Advice or More Information?


Writing Services, located in the Learning Commons on
the 1st floor of the Library, is the best source on campus
and online for advice and information on writing issues.
• Peer Helpers from a variety of disciplines offer
individual writing assistance to first-year students and
ESL students. And all University of Guelph students
— undergraduate and graduate — are entitled to three
free individual writing consultations per semester with
our professional staff. Appointments are recommended.

• Visit the Learning Commons home page to find out


about all our writing programs and services, or e-mail
questions to writing@uoguelph.ca.

• Fastfacts handouts (like this one) provide information


on a range of learning, writing, and academic
computing issues and are free to registered students.
The complete range of Fastfacts is available on the
Learning Commons Web site.

• More detailed information on writing university papers


can be found in our Learning Commons publications,
available for purchase at the Learning Commons
reception desk or the campus bookstore.

• Workshops, seminars, and short courses on learning,


studying and writing topics are offered regularly each
semester. Please contact the Learning Commons for
details.

Writing Services
The Learning Commons, 1st Floor, Library
www.learningcommons.uoguelph.ca
writing@uoguelph.ca
(519) 824-4120 ext. 53632

S-ar putea să vă placă și